¹ 7 P.R.S. 11 (Randulf de Glanvill). At first he is usually Randulf or Rannulf. In and after 1183–1184 he is usually Rannulf or Ranulf.

² 1 P. & M. 141; Morris, The Medieval English Sheriff, 113.

³ See Morris, op. cit., Chap. 10 and passim, for the obscure problem of the rewards of the sheriff's office. If we ignore extortion and misappropriation (ibid., 277–282), and the sheriff's aid (which perhaps ceased to be an emolument in the year Glanvill took office—ibid., 114), the main legitimate sources of income seem to have been the chattels of condemned thieves (Glanv. VII. 17), perquisites in the way of hospitality (Morris, op. cit., 282) and, in so far as they exceeded the annual “ferm” which he paid to the exchequer, the revenues from the King's estates, etc., and the judicial income (e.g., amercements—see Glan. IX. 10) of the local courts (Morris, op. cit., 114, 276–283). See also footnote 13, post.

⁴ 1 C.R.R. 433; Plac.Abr. 67, S.C. See also Calendar of Charter Rolls, i. 46, where Hervey de Glanvill is a witness (next after “Henry my nephew”) to a charter, temp. Henry I, whereby Stephen, Count of Mortain, granted a manor in the Honour of Eye. In 39 E.H.R. 569–571, Dr. Cam has printed a contemporary record of a Shire-moot of the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, held at Norwich circa 1150 A.D., where the Abbot of (Bury) St. Edmund's claimed that any man belonging to his eight and a half hundreds should be tried in the abbot's court—even for treason. King Stephen consented, subject to proof of the privilege before his justice and the shire. The speech of Hervey de Glamuyle [sic], in which he spoke of the fifty years during which he had attended shire and hundred courts—at first, before he became a tenant, in the company of his father—and claimed to remember many things earlier even than the reign of King Henry, persuaded the bishops, barons, sheriffs and others that the abbot's claim was duly established. The list of notabilities then present concludes with the two sheriffs and Hervey fitz Hervey and Robert de Glamuille—who was presumably (see (1949) 10 C.L.J. 94, 99) Ranulf de Glanvill's brother. More of this shire-moot and of the abbot's court at Catteshall may be found in Dr. Hurnard's article, “The Anglo Norman Franchises,” 64 E.H.R. 289, e.g., at pp. 324–325.

⁵ Martland, D.N.B., s.t. “Glanville, Ranulf de.” The Domesday tenant—presumably Hervey's father (see preceding footnote)—was a Robert de Glanvill holding chiefly of Robert Malet and of William de Warenne: Domesday, ii, ff. 304b, 308–309, 400–400b.

⁶ 6 Monasticon 380; Campbell, Lives of the Chief Justices, i, 19. C. T. Clay, in 5 E.Y.C. 236, suggests that he was born circa 1120–1130. Professor Beale suggested 1130 A.D.: Introduction to Beames' Glanville, p. iii. Maitland, D.N.B., says that this vill of Stratford was Stratford St. Andrew, near Saxmundham. The geography of Robert de Glanvill's Domesday holdings (see previous note) certainly seems to give that Stratford preference over Stratford St. Mary, on the southern boundary of Suffolk near the Stour estuary. It may be that Glanvill himself held lands in Stratford St. Andrew. Dickens, Register of Butley Priory (1510–1535), 12, asserts this and surmises that they were among the lands with which Glanvill endowed Butley Priory which he founded in Suffolk. In 6 Monasticon 382, the income of Butley Priory, temp. Hen. VIII, includes some £6 p.a. from Stratford lands; see also Dickens, op. cit., 12. Blomefield's History of Norfolk (2nd ed.), xi, 189, indicates that a William de Aubervill (who was evidently Glanvill's grandson of that name, not his son-in-law as there stated) gave to Butley Priory the Stratford lands, with other lands and with churches (which included West Somerton) by fine in 20 Hen. III. Perhaps, however, these Stratford lands had formerly belonged to the hospital which Glanvill had founded in West Somerton, in Norfolk, and William was merely concurring in some rearrangement between that hospital and the priory. In 6 Monasticon 769, Glanvill is said to have placed the hospital under the government of Butley Priory; moreover, the Butley records listed, ibid., 379n., include a “fine of divers counties” which, dated 21 Hen. III, concerned, inter alia, the advowson of West Somerton.

⁷ For the year 1169–1170, Robert de Stutevill accounts for the current farm of the county and Glanvill for past arrears: 15 P.R.S. 35–36. For the year 1175–1176, Glanvill accounts for the current farm and Robert for arrears: 25 P.R.S. 99. In the Pipe Roll for 1 Ric. I, p. 75, Glanvill is still sheriff; but he is neither sheriff nor charged with any arrears thereafter: e.g., 1 N.S. 58 et seq. The statement (e.g., in Poole, Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 389) that Glanvill was dismissed from office as a result of the Inquest of Sheriffs in 1170 is not necessarily supported by these dates, for on the face of them they suggest that he ceased to hold office in 1169.

⁸ See, e.g., Rotuli Chartarum, 54, where King John at his accession specifically confirms this together with all other gifts of land which William held in peace at the coronation of King Richard, who had himself confirmed them.

⁹ He held the farm of the honour of Lancaster (which had lands even in counties as remote as Suffolk) in the years 1172–1174: 22 P.R.S. 8–9. He was also custodian of the honour or Richmond or “Britanny” (which, primarily in Yorkshire, extended to many other counties including Cambs and Suffolk) in the years 1170–1183.

¹⁰ In the roll for the year 1168–1169 the sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk is credited, by the King's writ, with allowances to him of several small sums ranging from 10d. to 32s. 2d.: 13 P.R.S. 101, 104, 105. In 1171–1172 four sheriffs or farmers (at least three of them in East Anglia) are likewise credited with sums ranging from 16s. to £9 1s. 8d.: 18 P.R.S. 31, 38, 64, 117. The former, it seems, were his liabilities to contribute towards the amercements, etc., levied upon seven Hundreds wherein he held land; the latter were his liabilities (as sub-tenant in four Honours) for the scutages levied in respect of those knights who did not go, in person or by deputy, on the King's expedition to Ireland.

¹¹ 1 P. & M. 141; 1 E.Y.C. 304n.

¹² 1 E.Y.C. 391.

¹³ In 1177, for instance, Glanvill has held the farm of Westmoreland for three years and his steward, Reiner, renders its accounts at the exchequer: 26 P.R.S. 123. In 1180 the farm is mentioned again, only to record that Glanvill does not account for it “because the king has granted him those rents to sustain him in his service during the king's pleasure”: 29 P.R.S. 76.

¹⁴ 22 P.R.S. (1174–1175), passim, s.t. nova placita et novae conventiones, in ten counties; see also 25 P.R.S. (1175–1176) passim and pp. 108, 138 (justitiae errantes in Yorkshire and Northumberland). After 1185 there are few such entries for Glanvill and some of them relate only to previous years. At this period, it seems, the word placita in the Pipe Rolls had not yet ceased to imply a penalty imposed in a court of law; see H. G. Richardson's introduction to 21 N.S. xxii-xxiv, xxxii: at first (e.g., 1174–1176) Glanvill's usual colleague was Hugh de Cressi. In 1174, moreover, Glanvill was listed seventh of eight judges, headed by Richard de Luei, before whom an unprinted fine was levied: see F. J. West, The Justiciarship in England (a thesis deposited in Cambridge University Library), appendix A.

¹⁵ 33 P.R.S. 94–95, 154; 34 P.R.S. 155.

¹⁶ 25 P.R.S. 211.

¹⁷ 36 P.R.S. 193; 37 P.R.S. 205 (with the King and Prince John), 210; Pipe Roll of 1 Ric. I, p. 232.

¹⁸ Of the four earliest fines (dated 1180–1189) printed in 17 P.R.S., Glanvill is justiciar or justice in the first three: his last (no. 3) was levied at Oxford in January 1189; he is not in no. 4 (April 1189). He was named also, next after the bishops, in five of the six unprinted fines, for the period 1180–1186, listed by F. J. West, op. cit.: neither of the earlier two (dated 1180, 1181) gave him the title “justiciar.” In 5 E.Y.C. 157, with three other justices at York circa 1187, he witnessed a charter as “summa justicia.”

¹⁹ 29 P.R.S. passim. They end in the year 1189–1190. Such writs imply that, the king being absent from the realm, the justiciar is exercising vice-regal powers: 36 P.R.S., p. xvii. An unusual instance was an allowance from the rents and profits of the land of a deceased tenant in chief to the executors of his widow's will “to make its distribution”: 33 P.R.S. 133–134.

²⁰ Itinerary of Richard I, 13 N.S. 4.

²¹ Ibid. 29, 38, 44: 1 P. & M. 142. It is said that he paid a heavy fine to recover the King's favour: see Poole, Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 351.

²² See 1 P. & M. 143; also Lady Stenton, in Selden Society Publications, Vol. 67, pp. 9–10, for the new suggestion that Geoffrey fitz Peter, rather than Hubert Walter, “was instructed or encouraged by his master, Glanville,” to write or superintend the writing of the book.

²³ 6 Monasticon 380–381: 5 E.Y.C. 236–237. This Theobald should be distinguished from his grandson, Theobald de Valoines the younger, who had inherited his lands by circa 1178: ibid., 234–237.

²⁴ These, together with three fees in Wood Ditton (Cambs) and a half fee in Yorks, he held of the honour of Richmond (or Britanny): 5 E.Y.C. 234 et seq.

²⁵ 6 Monasticon 381.

²⁶ Whereas Maitland (D.N.B.) was careful to write merely that he left three daughters and that much of the genealogical information contained in Glanville-Eichards' Anglo-Norman House of Glanville is incorrect or very questionable, the latter (see pp. 45, 179–180) gives Glanvill and Berta two sons besides and makes one of them (and his children after him) inherit from Glanvill an earldom. See also Campbell, Lives of the Chief Justices, i, 35 (of his “numerous offspring only three daughters survived him … and he divided among them his vast possessions”) and compare Beale's introduction to Beames’ Glanville, p. vi (that he “left one son and three daughters whom he had already enriched from his great fortune”). J. H. Round's introduction to 35 P.R.S., p. xxiv, describes Glanvill's sister (Berta, who married William de Stutevill) as his niece, and his daughter (Helewis, who married Robert fitz Ralph) as his sister. Campbell, op. cit. 19, errs also in describing Glanvill's wife, Berta, as “heiress” of her father's “large possessions,” and asserts that Glanvill “inherited” a considerable estate from his father.

²⁷ Only a very bare outline is attempted here. See, generally, Poole, Exchequer in the Twelfth Century; and the introductions to N.S. Vols. 1, 11 and 21. The last of these by H. G. Richardson deals in detail with the financial machinery of our period and is of great importance.

²⁸ The Pipe Rolls do not tell how these tenants in chief reimbursed themselves by exacting their scutage from their own sub-tenants. But in fact they did so and could even obtain from the king the privilege of procuring the sheriff to distrain any such sub-tenants who had failed to pay them: see B.N.B., no. 333 (1229); also 11 N.S., p. xxiii.

²⁹ The Pipe Rolls do not specify the locality, within the county concerned, in which the lands lay.

³⁰ e.g., Red Book of the Exchequer and the Book of Fees: of these the latter often specifies the precise locality of the lands in question. The Domesday Survey is, on the whole, too early for our purposes. The immediate object of these inquiries was usually to ascertain what alienations or sub-infeudations had been made by the King's tenants-in-chief.

³¹ See e.g., footnote 10, ante. The names and fees of tenants holding of such an honour, in the King's hand, are sometimes to be found in other records, e.g., Red Book of the Exchequer and the Book of Fees. So also, sometimes, are the sub-tenants of other baronies and bishoprics.

³² Glanv. vii, 8; 2 P. & M. 342.

³³ Ibid. 343. Thus, when Glanvill's brother Roger died (c. 1195), Roger's debt to the King fell upon his heir Agnes and her husband; and the King compelled them to pay by seizing the lands that she had inherited: 10 Cambridge L.J. 95, 97. See also 1 N.S. 93 and 5 N.S. 49, where William de Glanvill inherits the indebtedness of his brother Stephen (“whose land he has”), who had himself inherited it from his father Bartholomew, a defaulting sheriff: 29 P.R.S. 19. When Eustace de Burnes died, owing seven marks to Aaron of Lincoln and so to the King, Robert de Turneham who had his heir and land in custody was summoned to the exchequer to answer for it (21 N.S. 21) and discharged it at once (12 N.S. 210)—here Eustace had specifically pledged his lands to Aaron (see 2 N.S. 148, 313; 10 N.S. 62). The lord as guardian of an infant heir was liable also for his scutages it seems: see 8 N.S. 30, where Hubert Walter has a special writ from King Eichard which excuses him the scutages of his wards (including Glanvill's grandson, Hugh de Aubervill).

³⁴ Perhaps the heir was not entered as debtor until the exchequer released the inheritance to him on his undertaking to pay.

³⁵ An example is Eustace de Burnes' debt, see note 33, supra. In fact the Pipe Roll of 1200 (12 N.S. 210) does not say who pays it: we are merely told that Eustace, whom we know to be dead, accounts for the debt and is quit. But the Memoranda Roll of the preceding year (21 N.S. 21) shows that Robert de Turneham, the guardian of Eustace's heir, was regarded as liable to pay and was summoned to the exchequer to show by what right he held the heir and that the lands meanwhile were seized into the king's hand. The clear implication is that Robert paid.

³⁶ See post, pp. 172–173, re the payment of Glanvill's debt and for the formulae which seemed (wrongly) to imply that he was still alive.

³⁷ 2 P. & M. 342–343. In those days a deceased freeholder's chattels devolved upon his heir, to be applied by him according to the deceased's will, if any: Assize of Northampton, 1176, c. 4; Cf. footnote 19, ante. In Glanvill's Treatise an heir is bound both to observe the deceased's testament and to pay his debts (VII, 5) and this statement is not restricted (as it is in Bracton f. 60) to cases where the deceased's chattels do not suffice; but a later passage (VII, 8) implies that the testament operates only upon such chattels as remain after the debts have been paid out of them.

³⁸ 2 P. & M. 343. See W. A. Morris, Medieval Sheriff, 134–135, for the exchequer's rules as to distraint in the latter half of the 12th century and for the rule that the sheriff's power of collection extended both to the debtor's movables and to the issues of his land. The practice seems to have been, in the 13th century if not before, that the sheriff should at once sieze the chattels of any deceased person who died indebted to the king, and should withhold them from the executors until the exchequer authorises him to release them: this the exchequer would not do until the debt was paid or the executors had found security for its payment: 11 N.S. (Memoranda Roll, 1230) pp. xxi–xxii, 39, 48. Meanwhile, moreover, the sheriff would be distraining the deceased's land and heirs for the debt: ibid. p. 52 (Glos.): cf. Magna Carta, 1215, c. 9.

³⁹ The earliest surviving Memoranda Rolls are those from the year 1199, printed in 21 N.S. (ibid., p. xvi). Those for the year 1230 are printed in 11 N.S. Footnotes 35 and 38, supra, illustrate the additional information that may be found in them.

⁴⁰ Post, pp. 172–173.

⁴¹ His steward, Reiner de Waxham, relieved him of most of his duties as sheriff of Yorks (and was even called “sheriff” there, though not, of course, at the exchequer): see E.Y.C., i. 479; ii. 313; iii. 120, 283, 374, 399, 448. Moreover, as Justiciar, he had his own mobile staff of clerks from the Chancery to issue his judicial and administrative writs, the exchequer issuing those relating to financial business: see H. G. Richardson, Introduction to 21 N.S. pp. lxxv–lxxxvi (s.t. “The Justiciar's Chancery”).

⁴² 1 P. & M. 519.

⁴³ Ibid. 135.

⁴⁴ H. G. Richardson, Introduction to 21 N.S. xiii–xv.

⁴⁵ Ibid., xiii–xiv, xciii (“the whole atmosphere of the exchequer was that of a court of law whatever the nature of the business before the barons”). Some writers do not entirely accept Richardson's view that Bench and Exchenuer were identical: see S. B. Chrimes' Introduction Essay to Vol. i of Holdsworth's History of English Law (7th ed.), p. 32*. It is reasserted in 70 L.Q.R. 568–570; 73 L.Q.R. 559.

⁴⁶ 21 N.S. lxxvii, lxxxix (citing Roger de Hoveden); see also the sub-title of Glanvill's treatise. Cf. Plucknett, Concise History of the Common Law, 5th ed., 235, where it is said that although Glanvill, Hubert Walter, and others—including presumably Geoffrey fitz Peter (the third possible author of the Glanvill Treatise, see ante, footnote 22)—considerably influenced legal development, yet in view of their diverse duties “we can hardly describe them as lawyers or judges”—meaning, presumably, that they were not lawyers or judges simpliciter.

⁴⁷ 37 P.R.S. 197. This and other entries show that it was a plea of the forest “per Geoffrey fitz Peter”—who was destined to succeed Hubert Walter as justiciar.

⁴⁸ 38 P.R.S. 174.

⁴⁹ 1 N.S. 134.

⁵⁰ 2 N.S. 87. The entry erroneously states of Nicholas' debt (though now reduced by the ten marks) that Glanvill is responsible for ten marks of it: the clerk has copied blindly from last year's roll.

⁵¹ 2 N.S. 296 (again with the error mentioned in preceding note).

⁵² 2 N.S. 194. There is a blank space where the words “owes” (or “renders account”) should stand. This is not unusual and seems to occur fairly frequently when a debtor is dead. Probably the rolls were drafted in outline before the clerk knew whether any part of the debt would be paid.

⁵³ The entries about his side of the debt continue to 9 N.S. 20 (1198).

⁵⁴ The last of these repetitions is in 8 N.S. 230.

⁵⁵ 2 N.S. 154.

⁵⁶ 5 N.S. 63. In 1191 and 1192 its final sentence had changed to “But he ought to be summoned in Norfolk”—2 N.S. 259; 3 N.S. 94.

⁵⁷ The last of these repetitions is in 8 N.S. 231.

⁵⁸ 9 N.S. 82.

⁵⁹ 10 N.S. 266.

⁶⁰ 12 N.S. 133.

⁶¹ 14 N.S. (1201) 131; 15 N.S. (1202) 107.

⁶² 16 N.S. 238. King John forgives the debt, says the writ, because Glanvill provided him with plate (pro vesselemento quod … nobis commodavit) before he was count of Mortain: Liberate Rolls (1202) 26. Glanville had been John's tutor (see Poole, Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 243, 429); took him at the King's command to Normandy in 1183; and went with him to Ireland in 1185 (see D.N.B., s.t. John): it was in those times, presumably, that John witnessed several of Glanvill's charters; e.g., 6 Monasticon 881 (c. 1182?): 1 E.Y.C. 255 (c. 1179–85).

⁶³ 6 Monasticon 381 (Maud, Thomas); ibid., 921 (Ranulf).

⁶⁴ Ante, p. 171, footnote 39.

⁶⁵ 21 N.S. 77 (s.t. Norfolk and Suffolk). The entry continues as follows: “and Ranulf Ribald [owes] twenty marks of the debt of the said Eanulf [de Glanvill].”

⁶⁶ See the following paragraphs; also the words quoted ante, p. 173, from King John's writ.

⁶⁷ VII. 3.

⁶⁸ See Richardson, 21 N.S. p. xiv, n. 5, as to the misleading commas customarily inserted in this the sub-title (or incipit) of the Treatise. The validity of the incipit has been challenged, but Professor Woodbine (see his edition of Glanvill, p. 183) thought it might well have been part of the original work.

⁶⁹ The Treatise is also much concerned with questions of homage in such a case: her husband (if any) does homage for the whole fee; but the younger daughters and their husbands and heirs, to the third generation, do neither homage nor fealty to her. See further 2 P. & M. 274.

⁷⁰ VII. 3. It uses the word only when expounding that right for the eldest male in partible lands: salvo tamen capitali mesuagio primogenito filio pro dignitate aesnesciae suae. But when speaking of a firstborn daughter (ibid.) it refers back to this rule.

⁷¹ 6 Monasticon 381.

⁷² Some of the most informing sources of pedigree are actions against religious houses wherein a donor's heir claims lands or advowsons from them. A striking instance, one of many, is seen in 2 E.Y.C. pp. 352–354, where (at p. 354) the nuns of St. Clement's, York, vouched in the year 1245 the supposed heir of a benefactor (Agnes Fossard) to defend their title to land given them a hundred years before.

⁷³ 6 Monasticon 381.

⁷⁴ But the excuse is the weaker in that the family held also several fees in East Anglia.

⁷⁵ 6 Monasticon 920–921: even this record omits one of her sons.

⁷⁶ 6 Monasticon 381. This story is repeated by some later writers, e.g., Campbell, Lives of the Chief Justices, i. 35, though not by Maitland (D.N.B.).

⁷⁷ See 10 Cambridge Law Journal, 101–103.

⁷⁸ Ante, p. 174.

⁷⁹ See post, pp. 178 et seq.

⁸⁰ See 2 P. & M. 306–311 for the disappearance, circa 1200, of Glanvill's rules against alienating one's lands away from one's heirs.

⁸¹ VII. 1. One who ha s no lawful issue can give away the whole and so disinherit entirely his heirs collateral; but this can only be done by gifts inter vivos with livery of seisin, “because God alone can make an heir, not man”: ibid.

⁸² Ibid.

⁸³ Ibid.

⁸⁴ VII. 1, and see footnote 81, supra. This is not necessarily a strong objection: the author of the Treatise was probably still thinking of bastards, who never can be heirs. He would have said, I think, that when one leaves legitimate sons and daughters all (without any help from man) are enually one's “heirs”—he uses the word in the sense of potential heirs; but that some heirs (here the eldest son) are nearer than the others and so inherit: see VII. 3.

⁸⁵ VII. 3 (near the beginning of that chapter). But this again is not conclusive for us, since the passage is dealing with a man who dies “hereditatem habens” and so may not apply to Glanvill's acquired lands. Moreover, it begs our question by supposing a n only “son-heir” (“si unicum filium habuerit heredem,” etc.).

⁸⁶ VII. 3 (in mid-chapter). But again the objections of the previous footnote apply— e.g., the passage begins “si vero filium habuerit quis heredem.”

⁸⁷ See the three preceding footnotes.

⁸⁸ “VII. 3; 2 P. & M. 282, 436n; Woodbine's notes to Glanvill, p. 228. Compare Leges Henrici Primi, c. 87, § 13, that a prospective heir who voluntarily abjures his parents cannot inherit from them; also ibid., § 15, as to one who deserts them in their necessity.

⁸⁹ VII. 1; 2 P. & M. 287 et seq.; Woodbine's notes to Glanvill, pp. 224–225; 9 Cambridge Law Journal, 88 et seq.

⁹⁰ The author of the Treatise contends that the second son is heir (to the exclusion of the first son's issue) only where the first son was forisfamiliated; but his words seem to say that, though forisfamiliated, the first son does inherit if he outlives his father: VII. 3.

⁹¹ See previous footnote that such issue would not thereby be barred from the inheritance, perhaps, if Glanvill's son had outlived him.

⁹² 1 R.C.R. (November 1194) 81, 106, 128. For “Tateston” see post, pp. 181–182 and footnote 18.

⁹³ 24 P.R.S. 234 (Hil. 1196); see further footnote 9, post. This entry states that Osbert had bought some 2½ bovates of land in “Dracloue” (Northants) from the widow's late husband. Her warrantor (William de Dracloue, her late husband's brother) acknowledges Ranulf's right to hold of him. There are errors and deficiencies in the roll. That same term Ranulf is suing (as “Ranulf de Glanvill”) in Northants a plea cuiusdam nativi: 24 P.R.S. 237.

⁹⁴ 1 C.R.R. 96; 1 R.C.R. 241, 434. So the action continued between the original parties; and Ranulf's tenant, who had vouched him, won without his assistance: 1 R.C.R. 429; 1 C.R.R. 135.

⁹⁵ See the references in the preceding footnote; also 1 R.C.R. 433 (July 1199) where he is sued for a novel disseisin committed at Brockley (Suffolk) and must pay damages and amercement.

⁹⁶ See e.g., 5 E.Y.C. 303 (the son of Helewis); also ante, p. 169, footnote 33 (the son of Maud).

⁹⁷ See 2 P. & M. 281 et seq. The analogy was even closer in the case of Glanvill's brother Roger: see 10 Cambridge Law Journal, 99 et seq.

⁹⁸ The fact that Osbert outlived Glanvill both reduces the force of the analogy suggested and excludes the principle of forisfamiliation in the limited scope which the treatise seems to give it (see footnote 90, supra). Moreover the actual problem raised, both by the casus regis and by the treatise, was whether a younger son (not daughters) should inherit instead of the deceased son's issue.

⁹⁹ 17 P.R.S. Nos. 2, 4.

¹ e.g., Glanvill's foundation charters to Butley Priory (6 Monasticon 380) and Leyston Abbey (ibid.., 880–881). See also 2 E.Y.C. 397 (No. 1096) where the first three of seven witnesses to a charter, c. 1180–1186, whereby William Fossard gave land in York to a monastery, are “Ranulf de Glanvill, Osbert de Glanvill, Hubert Walter.” Also 1 E.Y.C. 256 (No. 336) where, in a charter made by Glanvill himself, c. 1179–1185, concerning land in York, Osbert de Glanvill heads a list of seventeen witnesses who included William de Aubervill, four Glanvills, Hubert Walter, and a Theobald de Valeines (or Valoines).

² 35 P.R.S. (Rotuli de Dominabus) xxii, 59, 61, 68, 79—the infant son of Stephan de Bello Campo.

³ In 31 P.R.S. 74, the custodians of the vacant abbey say that their debit balance is super Osbert de Glanvill; see also 2 R.C.R. 10–11. Subsequently, Osbert witnessed a charter made (c. 1182—1190) by Samson, the new abbot: Kalendar of Abbot Samson, 84 Camden Third Series, 107. The land that he held of the abbey lay in Babergh Hundred, Suffolk, paying sheriff's aid at 18d. (ibid., 65): it was in “Cranemere” and owed suit to the hundred court (ibid., 69).

⁴ In 1199 that William's heir, Heinfrid, says that whilst he was an infant his step-father, Osbert de Glanvill, had his lands in custody: they are in Suffolk, of the Honour of Bolonia, and adjoin the liberty of St. Edmund's Abbey: it is a question about the right to hang felons: 2 R.C.R. 10–11. These lands are evidently the knight's fee in Ousden (Suffolk) which Heinfrid holds of the honour in Red Book, 141, 479, 579; Fees, 237, 241, etc.

⁵ This Thomas de Glanvill had a messuage in Ousden (cf. footnote 6, infra). Perhaps he was in orders or a bastard, for it was quit-claimed to him and his assigns (with no mention of heirs): 24 P.R.S. No. 35 (October 1198). There had been perhaps another son, William: see 24 P.R.S. 234–235.

⁶ B.N.B. No. 1920 (Suffolk Eyre 1227). Osbert's daughter had married William de Merc. Her maritagium was 100 acres at Ousden (Suffolk), and this they gave to their daughter Maud on her marriage to Peter de Thelnetham. William's son Giles was accordingly bound in law as his father's heir to warrant the gift (see Cambridge Law Journal, viii, 281 et seq., ix, 195, 201 et seq.) He duly warranted and put himself on the Grand Assize before becoming a monk. His civil death (see 1 P. & M. 416 et seq.) meant, presumably, that Maud inherited his lands. It would also have put an end to the action, had not the parties agreed otherwise. The plaintiff was a William de Criketot—a descendant of the William de Criketot whose widow had married Osbert de Glanvill. For this and their connection with Ousden see the two preceding footnotes.

⁷ 2 C.R.R. 78–79. Rye, Calendar of Suffolk Fines, p. 8. The land is one carucate in Barningham and Thelnetham; defendant is Bartholomew de Culverdeston (“parson of Langeford”).

⁸ 4 C.R.R. 57.

⁹ See footnote 93, ante. The Book of Fees (pp. 498, 932, etc.) for the period 1235–1243, seems to show that the earls of Oxford held only two knights’ fees in Northants —at Wold (or “Wald”). At that time there are four tenants thereof each holding one half fee of the earl. The Pipe Rolls of the years 1190–1192 show (s.t. Northants) that Osbert de Glanvill had pledged his land of “Wald” to Aaron of Lincoln for over £40, but was pardoned the debt by King Henry II: 2 N.S. 159, 263. It seems likely, therefore, that this land was held of the earls first by Osbert and then by his heir Ranulf and that, at Ranulf's death, his heiress Christiana fell accordingly into the earl's custody. The fact that there are four tenants in 1235 might suggest that she is now dead, leaving four daughters whose husbands they are. But it seems more likely that the Glanvill holding comprised only one of these half fees; for in 1243 (Fees, p. 932) one of these four tenants, William Toussaints, has been replaced by Robert Rote “with Christiana his wife”—so perhaps this is our Christiana carrying her half fee to two successive husbands.

¹⁰ 6 Monasticon 379. Ralph and Ranulf are names which the copyists often confused.

¹¹ See ante, p. 178; also post, footnote 18.

¹² For the substance of these two entries and for that cited in footnote 15, infra, I am indebted to Mr. Edward Miller, of St. John's College, who has made an extensive study of the Ely records.

¹³ Colt. Claudius C xi f. 19 d. See also footnote 16, infra. Cf. 28 N.S. (1211) 4, bis; where a William Oliver holds a half fee in “Tatingeston,” Suffolk.

¹⁴ Red Book 526; Cott. Tiberius B ii f. 247 d. Barking was in Bosmere Hundred (Book of Fees, 330; Inquisitio Eliensis, f. 20, Cf. 25 b; Domesday, ii, 383 a). Some of the Ely holding there seems to be associated in Domesday (ii 382 b) with the vill of Finborough, where Glanvill subsequently held two knights' fees of the Bishop—Miller, Abbey and Bishopric of Ely, 173. In the Red Book, 526, Petronilla seems to hold under Hugh de Aubervill.

¹⁵ Caius 485/489, f. 322 d. This Henry de Sandwich now held the Aubervill lands, having married Joan the daughter and heiress of William de Aubervill: Farrer, Honors and Knight's Fees, iii 246; Excerpt. Fin. ii. 227.

¹⁶ If the clerk who wrote this record (see footnote 13, supra)—the only one of the three versions of the 1212 return to state that Petronilla holds of Ranulf—was experienced in legal matters we should not expect him to write that a widow holds her dower “of” her late husband. He would write that she holds it “of his gift” or “of” his heir (whose tenant she would strictly be). So Petronilla may be some Glanvill whom Osbert or Ranulf enfeoffed.

¹⁷ Moreover (see footnote 7, ante, p. 181) the fact that Ranulf sued for his mother's maritagium, in 1201, suggests that she was then already dead.

¹⁸ One mile S.S.E. of Barking, in Suffolk, there is a moated “Tarston Hall.” Ten miles S.E. of Barking there is a Tattingstone. Chattisham, which lies six miles south of Barking, seems less likely.